I love how she doesn't return to answer the question ...

I love how she doesn't return to answer the question ...

Be grateful.

Kwing is a guy.

So ya, I came back.

First of all, you are all sadly mistaken. I am not against your view of the war. I know there are many fine Americans who do not understand the need to be at war sometimes or the need for certain wars. Thats fine. I understand that. As Americans, thankfully we have a right to voice that opinion. If we all would talk like mature adults and not make up stories and just try to drag another person down on the mud, things wuold be so much easier here. But with the way politics is these days, you can not be civil and get the work done.

I am not a conservative republican. I am a centrist. I lean more right on some issues and more left on others. But I do not fall under any circumstance to the far left or the far right. To me, those are the ones that have ruined politics in this country.

I do not back the President 100%. I am FOR stem cell research, I am FOR civil unions, I am FOR the war. But against how it was handled.

What I can not stand, and no one seems to understand because they believe I want things my way, which is wrong. I want honesty. And that is not what is being presented here. I showed ACTUAL quotes by leaders, before, during and after the war started, who based their information on intelligence. So is Clinton a liar because he sent missle after missle over to Iraq killing civililans as well? Or no, because none of our soilders were harmed?

I totally agree that the war has gone astray and the President IS responsible for that and for getting this taken care of. And I do have family that are fighting over there and I believe what they tell me LONG before I will believe an internet poster who is basing their information on hatred. So if i disagree with you, I have my reasons, but I am not going to tear you down because you are feeling differently.

There are no grounds for impeachment. That is well, stupid to say. Bush did not create the intelligence. The CIA, etc did that. The UN did that, the WHOLE WORLD played a part in that. Are we impeaching them? Can we impeach Clinton because he bombed the hell out of them for the WMD's that were there when he was in office, but later turned out...they did not have any.

How many Dems agree that Saddam had to go? Just about all of them. They still believe that even with the war going as it has.

I just hate the hatred. You can not be mature and discuss, you have to accuse, lie and demean. I just do not understand it.

Bush, Clinton (both of them) the Dems, the Repubs, the WORLD...had the same information for ALL the sources, not just ours , and they all said the same thing.

That is not Bushes fault is the point I am getting at.

Now, really. I will not return, because everyone who posts is just an angry person who only wants to hear what they believe. I think my post made it clear I look at the facts, not the hate.

I have my misgivings about the war. But like you...you can support the troops and not the war (although I will say my brother who is there says most of the military view the anti war people as idiots who do not care for freedom and democracy) and if you feel you can support them and not the war, I can support the war, but not all the decisions that went into it.

And thanks Q-steph...yes I am a guy! And Shawn...free speech baby. I am allowed here too even though the haters took my post and ruined it! And Drew, I was not going to come back, so why ask me things. I only did because I was bored. lol

I am not saying I am right or wrong. I am going by my gut and my feelings of how the facts have been presented. I do not call someone a murderer for doing what they think will protect us. Thats insane. Clinton murdered how many in Iraq then???

And I did not say the Dems were good or bad. I said they looked at the same intelligence the world did and were all gung ho about this war.

But when the war went bad, they backed away and all of a sudden the President was a liar. Ya thats not odd is it?!

Edited January 22, 200718 yr by Kwing42

From: http://www.alternet.org/story/47090/

Bush's SOTU: Nixon Would Have Been Proud

By Joshua Holland, AlterNet. Posted January 24, 2007.

Bush's seventh State of the Union speech was loaded with proposals that will go nowhere and had little relationship with reality. So much for hoping that a 28 percent approval rating would teach him anything. Tools

With 500 members of Congress packed into the peanut gallery, the attention of the nation's political and media establishments and millions of Americans hanging on his every word, the president of the United States gave his State of the Union address last night.

He does it every year -- it's in the Constitution!

Earlier yesterday, when asked by reporters what the best part of the speech was going to be, White House Spokesman Tony Snow replied, "You know, it's difficult to say. It's like looking in a drawer full of diamonds."

But those who were expecting some glittering bling-bling would have been disappointed; what made last night's SOTU noteworthy is that George W. Bush simply had nothing to say. It might have been the first time in American history.

Of course, everyone will pretend he said something important -- that it was a major address. The media will pick it apart and discuss its "significance"; lawmakers from both parties will quote bits and pieces of it to support or oppose this or that legislation; bloggers will remind us of what he said when he actually does the opposite and so on. But all you really need to know is that last night president George W. Bush could have come out on stage and, after pausing to let the ovation die down, he might have looked at the cameras with those beady little eyes and said, simply, "Folks, I got nothing. G'night!"

Yes, he went through the motions. After slowly making his way to the podium, straining to bear the weight of a 28 percent approval rating -- the lowest any president has had on the day of the Big Speech since Nixon's 1974 SOTU -- he engaged in a mini love-fest with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, saying, "I have a high privilege and distinct honor of my own -- as the first president to begin the State of the Union message with these words: Madam Speaker." It was, admittedly, a nice moment, even coming as it does 19 years after Pakistan had its first female prime minister.

He then gave a surprisingly smooth version of the usual boilerplate, laced heavily with tried-and-true focus-tested language. But consider what he really offered the American people last night, during what most folks consider to be a time of real crisis in this country.

The first 30 minutes focused on domestic issues. He said the "economy is on the move" and touted 41 months of job growth, even as new data released last week shows that income inequality is rising to "unprecedented" levels.

He called for a balanced budget -- the Fox camera caught new Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charlie Rangel laughing out loud -- and for earmark reform a week after the Dems passed a bill doing just that. He talked about "entitlement reform," saying that Social Security needed to be "saved" -- a narrative that economist Dean Baker calls Bush's "Social Security WMD story."

He told a nation with over 40 million people who lack health insurance that -- aside from poor children and the elderly -- "private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs." The centerpiece of his speech, if there was one, was a proposal for a standardized tax deduction of $7,500 for singles and $15,000 for families that would allow them to purchase a "basic private healthcare policy" -- code for the cheap, high-deductible plans that accompany those health savings accounts he's proposed in the past. It sounds good, but it's a nonstarter -- the tax credits would discourage younger, healthier people from buying decent coverage -- taking them out of the risk pool and increasing rates for everyone else -- and provide a disincentive for preventive care. American Prospect writer Ezra Klein called it "almost laughably wrongheaded," and said it "won't survive an instant in Congress. Pete Stark, chair of the House Health Subcommittee, has already dismissed the idea of hearings." It was, like the rest, much ado about nothing.

On immigration, the president again said he'd double border patrols and called for a civil debate leading to "comprehensive reform." It was the only time he got more applause from the Democratic side of the aisle than from the Republicans. I should note that despite a near-rebellion among his base over the issue, Bush has yet to offer a concrete proposal on immigration, instead mumbling positive words about various measures put forth in the Senate last year. More nothing.

On energy, he said that technology would ultimately wean us from our addiction to oil just one day after a high-powered group of business leaders, called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, declared that inventing new technology isn't enough.

His proposal to increase mileage standards and reduce gas consumption by 20 percent over the next ten years -- the Fox News commentators said, "one might wonder if such a thing is even possible" -- is certainly a good idea. But this is an administration that is joined at the hip with Big Oil. Bush has opposed raising fuel efficiency standards for his entire political career, most recently last February; does anyone believe that such a proposal won't go the way of his War on Steroids in Baseball or his plan to land a man on Mars -- those ghosts of SOTUs past?

It was clear that he wanted to focus on domestic issues; just weeks after proposing an escalation of troops in Iraq that two-thirds of Americans oppose, he all but shouted, "for the love of God, can we please change the subject!" By my rough reckoning, he spent about eight minutes on the "War on Terror" and another six on Iraq, dodging between the two in his usual way.

He said, "We did not drive al Qaeda out of their safe haven in Afghanistan only to let them set up a new safe haven in a free Iraq." While the Taliban are busy building schools in Afghanistan, he was right about al Qaeda; we drove them out of Afghanistan so they could set up a new safe haven in Pakistan.

The highlight of the evening's discourse was when Bush said, "Free people are not drawn to violent and malignant ideologies." And there was Dick Cheney, smirking over the president's shoulder and disproving the claim even as he uttered it.

We face the twin demons of Sunni and Shiite extremists, said the president, who will come from "all directions" and take over the whole of Iraq if we withdraw. He blamed Iran for supporting those Shiite extremists -- a somewhat questionable charge -- and al Qaeda for aiding their Sunni counterparts; as we've come to expect in Bush's speeches, there was no mention of his Saudi friends who are reportedly financing the very insurgents responsible for the majority of U.S. deaths.

Of his escalation plan, he said: "Our military commanders and I have carefully weighed the options. We discussed every possible approach. In the end, I chose this course of action because it provides the best chance of success." Left unsaid was that he had fired those generals who disagreed. His plan garnered only scattered applause from the Republicans, while the Dems sat on their hands.

Among the noteworthy aspects of the speech was what was left out. As the AP noted, "Hurricane-ravaged New Orleans, La., still is a mess, and the pace of recovery across the Gulf Coast from Hurricane Katrina's strike remains achingly slow after 17 months. But none of this captured President George W. Bush's attention on the year's biggest night for showcasing policy priorities."

To be fair to the president, it didn't really matter what he said; Americans are fully aware of the state of our union. Polls this week paint a grim picture of a nation that has lost confidence in its leaders. Seven out of ten Americans say the country is headed on the wrong track. A record 64 percent call the Iraq war a mistake, more than at any time during Vietnam, and "for the first time more than half of Americans, 52 percent, say the United States should withdraw its forces to avoid further U.S. casualties, even if civil order hasn't been restored." More than half think the economy's getting worse, and less than a third of the country thinks Bush "shares their priorities." He might as well have gone up there and admitted that he had nothing.

Ultimately, the best thing about this State of the Union was the end -- Miller Time -- and with it, the knowledge that we'll only have to suffer through one more.

Tagged as: 2007, bush, state of the union

Joshua Holland is an AlterNet staff writer.

Wow surprising article, considering the Dems liked or are willing to work on several ideas that were pitched on Tuesday.

But regardless, this thread was about all the Dems that told that "same lie" that the President is accused of telling, even before he was President. If you want to start a SOTU thread, you are more than welcome too? And besides, if you can not get your article from a reputible news source, it is better to not post, I would assume. Stick to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC or national newspapers. Getting an article from a website that only has an agenda...thats pretty sad bro!

But stick to the topic, please?

Edited January 25, 200718 yr by Kwing42

Wow surprising article, considering the Dems liked or are willing to work on several ideas that were pitched on Tuesday.

But regardless, this thread was about all the Dems that told that "same lie" that the President is accused of telling, even before he was President. If you want to start a SOTU thread, you are more than welcome too? And besides, if you can not get your article from a reputible news source, it is better to not post, I would assume. Stick to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC or national newspapers. Getting an article from a website that only has an agenda...thats pretty sad bro!

But stick to the topic, please?

FYI if he had gotten an article from CNN it would have been just as one sided as if he had gotten it from FOXNEWS. None of the "sources" you suggested would gie the whole picture, just saying.

Wow surprising article, considering the Dems liked or are willing to work on several ideas that were pitched on Tuesday.

But regardless, this thread was about all the Dems that told that "same lie" that the President is accused of telling, even before he was President. If you want to start a SOTU thread, you are more than welcome too? And besides, if you can not get your article from a reputible news source, it is better to not post, I would assume. Stick to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC or national newspapers. Getting an article from a website that only has an agenda...thats pretty sad bro!

But stick to the topic, please?

It's not sad....it's the truth. There is overwhelming disapproval to Bush's Iraq agenda by the American people. Even Republicans are turning on him at this point. Doesn't matter what site this article came from, they would all say nearly the exact same thing.

Wow surprising article, considering the Dems liked or are willing to work on several ideas that were pitched on Tuesday.

But regardless, this thread was about all the Dems that told that "same lie" that the President is accused of telling, even before he was President. If you want to start a SOTU thread, you are more than welcome too? And besides, if you can not get your article from a reputible news source, it is better to not post, I would assume. Stick to CNN, MSNBC, FOX, CNBC or national newspapers. Getting an article from a website that only has an agenda...thats pretty sad bro!

But stick to the topic, please?

Ok. Let me say this once more. I, personally, gave you the fact that the Dems agreed with and/or lied about the faulty intel. that led up to the current Republican-led clusterfuck we're involved in now. I have said, on more than one occasion, that I feel both parties have members who are full of crap and need to not be in any publicly elected office.

But now....to say that the POTUS and the VPOTUS were accused of a lie and or/cover-up of evidence and facts......excuse me, but are we watching the same news reports? Or are you watching Fox News while I stick to MSNBC? Why is it that, even though some members have given you the Democratic point you keep making, that you refuse to do the same with the Repulicans? Or Bush? Cheney? Rice? Powell? I just don't see that from a person who calls themselves middle of the road.

And.....I will always get my reporting from MSNBC. I used to watch CNN, but now they have completely lost their identity, and Fox News makes my apartment lean to the right every time I stop on it. Kinda like the bad guys' lair from Batman. So, I'm sorry that I can't accomedate you on that.

But, it's getting old saying that the Dems lied but Bush and Co. didn't. Or, the Dems lied first, that makes them 10,000 times more in the wrong than the POTUS and his criminal elite. Because, by that logic, if someone lied before you did on anything, but you lied as well, you shouldn't get in any trouble or be exonerated because the first person told the same lie first.

Ok. I see.

Edited January 29, 200718 yr by Roman

I agree...I try to preach to not use hate...but here I got sucked into the hatred of others.

I do apologize. Some people knew exactly what they were doing when they started this thread....and I fell for it. I stand by my views...but I should let the haters spew their hate and move on.

I'm gonna one up you here Kwing and not get baited into your blatant hatred of others and complete disregard of opposing viewpoints.

Edited January 29, 200718 yr by juniorz1